Mandatory Calorie Counts
Replies
-
I'm not sure if you're aware but we already have this law in New York State. I live in NYC and calories are every where I go.
As a public health professional and researcher with often controversial views (I don't support Bloomberg's big soda ban), I think this is a great way to move towards a healthier community. The reason is that it is NOT making decisions for anyone.. it does not take the choice away from you.
It's not just fast food. It's all places with multiple stores, including sit down restaurants. If I walk into the Pax downstairs, I can see that the giant cupcake is 600 calories.. and I won't buy it. I didn't used to see that. I can see that a sandwich is 500 calories and choose that instead (and eat 1/2 of eat with soup). But no one is forcing me to eat either one.. I've just gotten more information and for people who aren't tracking every calorie, this can at least help the be a little calorie conscious.
I have alot of issues with laws that prevent primarily poor/minority people from eating what they want .. for example, the soda ban primarily targets low income communities because they drink soda more. No one is banning 500 calorie $8 lattes with caramel and whipped cream from starbucks!!
But I think the calorie laws are great way to educate the public and make the layman a little more calorie aware about what they are actually putting into their bodies.
The natural next question is.. well if people can see the calories, do they know how much they should eat? In NYC, the public health department has paired the calorie labels with constant public health awareness campaigns, especially targeted at fast food. They'll say that the average person shouldn't eat more than 2000 calories a day, but the cheeseburger meal is 1000 calories.. Or it'll say something about children's calorie intake. They have a great one that shows that you have to walk from Yankee Stadium, in the Bronx, to Central Park to burn off the calories in a soda.
I don't know how effective these efforts have been, but research is starting to come out that shows that people are making smarter decisions with more information. It's a good first step.0 -
Why would anyone say this is a bad thing? I didn't know this was happening I think it is awesome! They should also have to list ALL ingredients.
ETA: What is the rationale that this would be a burden on business? They are in the business of selling food, they should not be above regulations. I would actually like to go a step further and make this a national requirement for ALL restaurants (not just corporate chains). If you are selling something meant for human consumption you should be required to list all ingredients and nutritional information even if you are a "mom and pop" shop in backwater east-nowhere. Why should anyone be exempt, are they afraid that once people know what they are serving then they won't buy it? Well too bad, that's just capitalism at work. It might encourage restaurants to make healthier options. Win win.0 -
Why would anyone say this is a bad thing? I didn't know this was happening I think it is awesome! They should also have to list ALL ingredients.
ETA: What is the rationale that this would be a burden on business? They are in the business of selling food, they should not be above regulations. I would actually like to go a step further and make this a national requirement for ALL restaurants (not just corporate chains). If you are selling something meant for human consumption you should be required to list all ingredients and nutritional information even if you are a "mom and pop" shop in backwater east-nowhere. Why should anyone be exempt, are they afraid that once people know what they are serving then they won't buy it? Well too bad, that's just capitalism at work. It might encourage restaurants to make healthier options. Win win.
Since you asked...
It costs money for businesses to print brochures, signs, etc. with calorie/nutriional information. It takes time for that information to be gathered and published (and time = money).
Not to mention, a retaurant's menu is not static. Things change. Menu items get added, dropped, and modified. Not to mention, suppliers can change frequently as well. If a restaurant gets its buns from Sunbeam this month, but next month switches to Bimbo, it has to redo all its calorie/nutritional info. That's more time and money.
And when the government forces businesses to do things, it's not "capitalism at work." It's bureaucracy at work. If businesses choose to publish nutritional data (as some already do), that's great. Potential customers can then make informed decisions. If they choose not to, potential customers can still make the decision whether or not to eat there. "That" is the free market at work: companies and customers making choices without undue interference.0 -
I think it's great! If places are worried about losing business over their ridiculously high-calorie foods, this may actually encourage them to do something to make things a little healthier. Foods don't *have* to be slathered in butter and fried to taste good!
^^THIS.
I think it's fantastic. I really feel like many people are severely under-educated in nutritional matters, and if this helps even some people make better choices while they are out, then it can only be a good thing. I know I have definitely made different choices when seeing the calorie counts on a menu or a chart.
And as far as it costing businesses time and money, it doesn't have to be that hard, really. It's something they should be doing, anyway, if they are actually serious about giving consumers a choice. All they need is ONE printed chart posted at the front of the restaurant, and one page on their website. It doesn't take all that much time to figure out what the calories in something is, all of us do it every damn day, so a change in ONE chart and on one website page is minimal compared to people not coming to their restaurant at all who would like to know this information but cannot find it, so choose somewhere else to go that does provide it. *shrug*0 -
Governing this is pretty much unenforceable. What, are there going to be undercover people taking food back to labs to check to be sure that the numbers are accurate? Bah ha ha.
1.) Too much of a burden on businesses.
2.) Restaurant food estimations are going to be off by hundreds of calories anyway...I worked at a restaurant, no two identical items are prepared identically....except maybe at McDs or similar cookie-cutter restaurants with strict protion control. If you're eating at those places more than a couple times a week, you're going to have worse problems than calorie accuracy. Just because you order something with "no oil" doesn't mean that is how you will get it....and you won't know the difference.
3.) Calorie counting is not that difficult, nor is it that exact. If you can't tell the difference between a fried chicken ceasar and a grilled chicken with dry veggies, you will never lose weight anyway.
We need to stop blaming everyone else for our over-eating. Spend a couple hours learning about which foods are lower calorie. Then take the responsiblity for what you put in your mouth.0 -
Since you asked...
It costs money for businesses to print brochures, signs, etc. with calorie/nutriional information. It takes time for that information to be gathered and published (and time = money).
Not to mention, a retaurant's menu is not static. Things change. Menu items get added, dropped, and modified. Not to mention, suppliers can change frequently as well. If a restaurant gets its buns from Sunbeam this month, but next month switches to Bimbo, it has to redo all its calorie/nutritional info. That's more time and money.
And when the government forces businesses to do things, it's not "capitalism at work." It's bureaucracy at work. If businesses choose to publish nutritional data (as some already do), that's great. Potential customers can then make informed decisions. If they choose not to, potential customers can still make the decision whether or not to eat there. "That" is the free market at work: companies and customers making choices without undue interference.
Very well said. This is just another example of our government trying to legislate everything. Fortunately as it's only large chains which have a more set menu and quantity of scale, and it's less likely to cause undue financial hardship since most of them were providing the information anyway. However, as an owner of a small food business, I can tell you it would be difficult. Very few items on my menu are static. Most are weekly specials and I don't follow exact recipes. I am more than happy to let a customer know what is in something if they have concerns, but being required to print and publish everything would be cumbersome.0 -
And when the government forces businesses to do things, it's not "capitalism at work." It's bureaucracy at work. If businesses choose to publish nutritional data (as some already do), that's great. Potential customers can then make informed decisions. If they choose not to, potential customers can still make the decision whether or not to eat there. "That" is the free market at work: companies and customers making choices without undue interference.
QFT
Bureaucracy doesn't help consumers *or* businesses. It simply justifies their existence collecting our tax money for a paycheck. This information is already available, by the demand of consumers, at most major chains. Making it a new regulation isn't going to have a huge impact on the supply side because consumers that care have already voted with their money.0 -
Governing this is pretty much unenforceable. What, are there going to be undercover people taking food back to labs to check to be sure that the numbers are accurate? Bah ha ha.
1.) Too much of a burden on businesses.
2.) Restaurant food estimations are going to be off by hundreds of calories anyway...I worked at a restaurant, no two identical items are prepared identically....except maybe at McDs or similar cookie-cutter restaurants with strict protion control. If you're eating at those places more than a couple times a week, you're going to have worse problems than calorie accuracy. Just because you order something with "no oil" doesn't mean that is how you will get it....and you won't know the difference.
3.) Calorie counting is not that difficult, nor is it that exact. If you can't tell the difference between a fried chicken ceasar and a grilled chicken with dry veggies, you will never lose weight anyway.
We need to stop blaming everyone else for our over-eating. Spend a couple hours learning about which foods are lower calorie. Then take the responsiblity for what you put in your mouth.
This too!0 -
It's the whole "you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink" scenario going on here. We can blast information until we're blue in the face but people will continue to make bad decisions because they just don't care. There are those that will make good decisions because they are motivated to do so.
And if you read closely, it applies to businesses with more than 20 locations (at least according to the poster above) so your small businesses won't get totally screwed. Just sayin'.0 -
I am not sure I want to know...lol
It's just a fact that to make anything taste fabulous, the big three killers of sugar, salt and fat must be loaded into the dish.
Once I started researching the nutritional value of foods to eat out, it totally ruined my meals.
They're just terrible unless you get some loathsome salad or tasteless "heart healthy" item.
I am learning that for me I have traded a love for food with optimal health.
I can't indulge both.0 -
I think it's smarter than putting it on the wrapper or box of what you just bought.
Obviously you go into certain places having a general idea if this is going to be good or bad for me, but if going with others, or you do want a better choice, makes it easy. It's the think you are choosing somewhat wisely and discover some item in the food blew it away.
And start giving general population some clue as to what they are eating, since they'll never go find the info board and read through big tables of complete nutrition info.
Even if they don't stop going to places with mostly bad things available, may help them realize they like that other food item too, and wow, it's 300 calories smaller to boot. Guess I'll go for the smaller one.
Just as you can start getting used to comparing prices not only at a location but between locations, i think it'll slowly but surely start helping ones get some perspective where they had none before.
I mean really, how many women on MFP think 1200 is just perfectly fine and maybe even too much and if they are recommended to eat 1400 think they'll gain weight - not even realizing they used to probably eat closer to 2500-3000 daily.
Lack of perspective.0 -
I don't see what harm it does to give consumers an idea of what they are actually buying. It seems pointless to argue against it when all the other foods we buy are labelled. Chain restaurants with 20+ locations like the law applies to are using factory prepped food and standardized cooking systems anyway. I don't see any difference between fast food and frozen dinners other than who does the heating.0
-
I think it hurts business and as we are a capitalist consumer driven economy it could be bad. While I agree that you should be able to access information about nutrition and calorie counts for chains, I think it unnecessary to post such places as drive through windows. If you want the info, then do the legwork tog et it ahead of time.
THIS.0 -
I know Thai Express has the calorie counts on their website, and it's scary when you do the math!!!0
-
Love the idea!0
-
I recently moved away from California and it's done there already. I really liked it and I miss it! The calories were right next to the price or under the name of the item. Calories are listed for cocktails, too.
As someone else said, most chains provide this info on their websites, I've looked things up that way.
Here's the CA law:
As of January 1, 2010 the law required that large restaurant chains with 20 or more locations in California disclosure calorie information only for each standard menu item directly on the menu if the restaurant has a menu, or on the indoor menu board if that is used, or on display tags if those are used in lieu of a menu or indoor menu board. For chain restaurants that have a drive-through area and use a menu board, they must disclose calories, grams of carbohydrates, grams of saturated fat and miligrams of sodium on a brochure that is available upon request (end quote)
I don't think it is an undue burden on restaurants/owners to disclose the content of their food. In CA a lot of places put the calorie listings in effect earlier than the law mandated. Some chains are just irresponsible with the serving sizes they offer or how the food is prepared (Cheesecake Factory, OMG), and giving out the information may help them move to healthier offerings. Even if the counts are inaccurate, as I'm sure my daily log is quite often, it at least gives the consumer a ballpark idea of what they are eating.0 -
So one of the new(ish) pieces of legislation from the FDA is on calorie disclosure. The short version of the law (as I, in my limited knowledge, understand it) is that all restaurants or chain food establishments with more than 20 locations must provide full calorie disclosure on their products/menus. For example if you go to McDonalds the drive up window must have all the calorie counts for each product or if you go to gas station/convenience store chain they must have all the information posted as well. This has already been enacted in NY State but I believe is a nationwide change in the laws as it is a piece of the legislation on ObamaCare.
So the purpose of this post is not to stir up vitriol etc about Obamacare. I know we all have drastically differing opinions and if this were about politics then I'd have posted it elsewhere. What I'm interested in are people's opinions on this law. Is this a good thing? Bad thing? Is it helpful? Hurtful? Why or why not?
Not American but we have stuff like that going on over here in Australia and I think it's a positive thing. It allows the consumer to make an informed decision when they go and buy something. If I decide to buy fast food and I look over the menu I can see the grilled chicken burger has less calories / fat than a cheeseburger so I'll choose that instead. I wish all businesses offered this information willingly, went to lunch at a noodle place and had no idea if my meal was 1000 calories or 300.0 -
I think it's the best thing and the worst thing all at the sane time. When I was in New York seeing the calories mortified me, it's hard to enjoy a meal when you know it's more than what I usually eat in a day. I like to know, but at the same time sometimes I want to go out and eat unhealthy and not know how unhealthy.0
-
I agree. America is the FATTEST nation and those (we) who realize we have a problem and want to change it should be able to ask the the nutritional info and freely get it. Those who don't care wont read it anyway. The burden should be on the individual to do what is right for them to live longer, healthier and slimmer lives. The burden should not be on the business. McDonald's does not force me to spend money with them and they don't force me to eat a big Mac. I CHOOSE. And these days I choose the southwestern salad without the dressing :-)0
-
I think it's the best thing and the worst thing all at the sane time. When I was in New York seeing the calories mortified me, it's hard to enjoy a meal when you know it's more than what I usually eat in a day. I like to know, but at the same time sometimes I want to go out and eat unhealthy and not know how unhealthy.
Funny! I agree too, but when I do fall off the wagon, I want to know how badly so I'm not so quick to do it again!0 -
Ok, how hard can it be on any restauarant to do this? we do it every day - weighing our food and logging our calories..
I will say that au ban pan started this and they had lots of healthy low calorie alternatives as well as some pretty hefty calorie bagels, muffins and pastries.0 -
McDonalds and Panera already do that here and I love it! It has driven my choices many times, and I have chosen not to get something I wanted many times because of the calorie count....I love to know exactly the calories before I choose, don't really care about the politics of it, just appreciate the openness to help me make better choices.0
-
It won't make any difference in the overall obesity stats, much the same way nutritional labeling has impacted obesity since that was introduced a decade or more ago.0
-
Most place already had the info available- just not up on on the menu board. (which is now very crowded and hard to read at my mcdonalds) So anyone who was actually concerned about it could take a moment and look at the nutritional pamphlet or page BEFORE ordering. This law helps people that don't think about it until they are in line to order..... which is probably why so many fail at dieting. You can't legislate "lazy."
I disagree with the law, because it is an expense for info most places already published- they also have to modify or replace all the menu signage at every location... that is fairly expensive. In my opinion, this should at least be a tax deductible expense.
reading back through some of the responses- I'm amazed at how few people think about their meal before they order it.... I assumed that anyone here (at least) would be pretty methodical about planning out meals. I take 5 minutes before I go out and look at the nutritional data and then weigh the options and make a decision. If you didn't plan out the meals at home you wouldn't ever reach your goals- why would you not do the same for a restaurant- especially since so many of them are caloric nightmares if you aren't careful???0 -
Most people know when they're eating something that isn't good for them, or when they're eating too much. Another reason why I think it's pointless is because the food stats are measured in a lab, and it's down to a science. Scientists, or specialists aren't making your food at the local chain...Whose to say you won't get a little extra something here or there? Just a little bit can make a huge difference!
Personally, I feel that instead of over burdening eateries with this law, they should instead crack down on them for deceptive adverts. For example:
When a restaurant advertises a salad to be a healthful choice, but then hides a crazy amount of calories elsewhere (note that this practice is not limited to just salads.)0 -
I think it's a great idea, it would make eating out a whole lot more enjoyable and less stressful for me personally, will it make a difference to peoples choices ? Maybe not but I think if the information is readily available, people wouldn't be able to use the I didn't realise it was bad for me excuse! I hate the fact the nhs is paying out massive amounts for gastric bands, diabetes medication etc etc because people are eating too much and moving too little! same goes for smokers etc if you knowing participate in an activity you know is bad for you only you should be held accountable!0
-
It won't make any difference in the overall obesity stats, much the same way nutritional labeling has impacted obesity since that was introduced a decade or more ago.
Bingo. I don't like the "added burden" if there really is one ... but, I have to agree with your comment.
Those of us that are trying to make smart choices will benefit from it. Those that are slamming down crap food ALL DAY LONG will not even notice that the info is there. Hell, it will help those of us that are working on getting fit and won't even affect those that could care less. The guy counting macros and treating himself to a Big Mac love it. He/she will just have an easier time filling out their log and checking their macros.
So, I guess it will help those that give a damn and not affect those that don't. Not the intended result, but plus one for us I guess?0 -
I wish more places would do this! I'm in Colorado and Mcdonald's is the only place I've seen list the calories. Until very recently, I didn't have a smartphone, so if I went out somewhere unexpectedly (with friends/no plans ahead, etc.) I had no idea what was/wasn't a good choice. Sometimes salads can have more than 1,000 calories, so you can't just order what you assume might be healthy. Some places don't even have the information online either, so I'm totally guessing for calories. I could be way under or over doing it. Sometimes I'll look stuff up online and the calorie amount seems WAY off, to the point where I know it can't be right but I have no idea what the real calories are. For example, one of my favorite "cheats' is Larkburger. Online sources say the burger is 260 calories. I know there's absolutely no way that's true. I'd think if the restaurants were forced to publish the calorie amounts, they'd be more accurate. I have gotten better at cooking my own things and going out on my own less, but usually if I'm out with friends we end up going out somewhere. You shouldn't have to give up your social life for a diet- I'd like to be able to go out and still make good food choices. As other people have mentioned, for people that simply don't care, the calorie amounts aren't going to bother them.0
-
Why would anyone say this is a bad thing? I didn't know this was happening I think it is awesome! They should also have to list ALL ingredients.
ETA: What is the rationale that this would be a burden on business? They are in the business of selling food, they should not be above regulations. I would actually like to go a step further and make this a national requirement for ALL restaurants (not just corporate chains). If you are selling something meant for human consumption you should be required to list all ingredients and nutritional information even if you are a "mom and pop" shop in backwater east-nowhere. Why should anyone be exempt, are they afraid that once people know what they are serving then they won't buy it? Well too bad, that's just capitalism at work. It might encourage restaurants to make healthier options. Win win.
Since you asked...
It costs money for businesses to print brochures, signs, etc. with calorie/nutriional information. It takes time for that information to be gathered and published (and time = money).
Not to mention, a retaurant's menu is not static. Things change. Menu items get added, dropped, and modified. Not to mention, suppliers can change frequently as well. If a restaurant gets its buns from Sunbeam this month, but next month switches to Bimbo, it has to redo all its calorie/nutritional info. That's more time and money.
And when the government forces businesses to do things, it's not "capitalism at work." It's bureaucracy at work. If businesses choose to publish nutritional data (as some already do), that's great. Potential customers can then make informed decisions. If they choose not to, potential customers can still make the decision whether or not to eat there. "That" is the free market at work: companies and customers making choices without undue interference.
Oh please. It probably took me all of ten minutes today, conservatively, to do all my logging (including a custom food, all meals, & a recipe). For a business: Do similar, extract data, plug into template, send to underpaid designer to clean up. 2 days max.
How often does a medium to large sized restaurant franchise change its menu, anyway? Smaller businesses that do so daily can literally just print this off in Word, maybe send it to Qwik Kopy. Or write it on a bloody chalkboard.
The problem is, it costs businesses more to buy, develop, store, and prepare nutrition-dense food. It's just cheaper for them to get you to love them by loading up their product with fat, sugar and salt.
Which they know you won't want, once you know that ^ means it's 1000 calories for some kind of bacon chicken cheese Caesar "salad".0 -
And I think it's fantastic, and wish it happened consistently in my country.
Seeing nutritional info at the point of ordering is important. We all selectively remember/forget things, especially when we're motivated (tired & hungry).
Though, even smaller places wouldn't necessarily be hurt by posting cals. I do and would plan around or compensate for e.g. a 3000 calorie meal that I'm looking forward to, for an experience. (Say I go somewhere French, and have wine and dessert. Or I'm hungover and go for a full breakfast with pancakes and all that.) Those become choices, vs impulses.
But again, that means the product has to be worthwhile (or my frame of mind sufficiently compromised).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions